London September Meet Up -- Thursday 2nd

The London branch of the LPUK will be meeting up at the Rose and Crown this Thursday -- 2nd.

As usual we will be there from 6:30 until late. So feel free to pop along at any time.

A map is below for those who haven't been before. And we hope to see you on Thursday.

View Rose and Crown -- Southwark in a larger map

Mind Set Of A Failed Democracy and the Creation of Labour's Stasi State.

To my eternal regret two years ago I did not buy Chris Mullin's first edition of his diaries 'The View From The Foothills' and have the opportunity to have it signed at the Hay festival.

This morning I have so far spent a relatively lazy morning, clearing up two dead rabbits that one of the cats has decided to supplement his diet with, yesterday it was only one headless on the the kitchen tiles. However I was able to listen to Chris Mullin's new diary extracts on Radio 4 called Decline & Fall 2005-10. A deliberate title parody of Gibbon's Roman Empire or the last days in the Reichs bunker.

Chris Mullin has always struck me as one of the few Labour men that I can have time for because of his principled stance on Civil Liberties.

Listening to the extracts this morning which dealt with the vote on ninety days detention under the Terrorism Act that Mullin opposed it was clear that the vast majority of Labour MP's would not recognise principle if it stood up and hit them in the face.

Blair made an impassioned speech to the PLP to support ninety days on the basis that it would wrong foot the Tories, not dealing with terrorists. Blair the operator clearly knew the sheep he was dealing with. As with driving the sheep into the lobby over Iraq, Blair was on sparkling form.

As a well know dissenter, he was called into to see the whip, then the 'man' himself, who urged him to vote with the Government. Mullin said he would love to, if he had not spent most of the seventies and eighties fighting the very people that Blair was preparing to give extended powers to.

(As with most episodes of Police malpractice, nobody was ever bought to book, Supt Reade and others though charged with Perjury and perverting the course of Justice were never prosecuted)

In the event the sheep were defeated by the wolves, the first ever nu-labour defeat. As Mullin said, 'The Rubicon had been crossed'.

Mullin exposes the sham of naked and dangerous power play that is 'Representative Parliamentary Democracy' as practiced in this country. Without men and women of princple, a small cabal of 'like minded friends' tend to run the country. The publication of 'The Journey' by one T.Blair will show that largely that the small cabal around Blair were acting in the interests of a foreign power, namely the United States, not the the United Kingdom.

If the quality of the flock of sheep that was the PLP was anything to go by we desperately need a written Constitution to hold the Executive in check, when having a pop at the Tories is seen as more important than national security.

Food For Thought- Nobody saw It Coming ??

H/T Caprain Ranty

Dear Asil

Dear Asil

Are you mad ! I heard your pretty little speech about an innocent man has nothing to fear from an English Court on Radio 4, but you have been out of the Country for seventeen years a lot has changed.

Clearly something went majorly wrong with the legal process back twenty years ago, otherwise you would not have got a Judge to grant you bail after having done a runner and I do not blame you for one minute for getting that private plane out of the country. However if you are expecting to be treated ‘innocent until proved guilty’ you are coming back to the wrong country.

Since starting writing this letter to you, the major legal cock up has been revealed, it emerged during a bail hearing in July this year that you were never, legally speaking, on the run.
In 1992 having pleaded not guilty to the SFO's allegations you were allowed to leave the court without a judge deciding whether you should be bailed or remanded.A Judge issued an arrest warrant for breach of bail in 1993, that had never been granted in the first place.

You bet we are not going to hear a lot about that little slip up

Tim Worstall gives a pretty good summary for those of you in diapers at the time of the Polly Peck saga here, the essence of which was what PP was doing was perfectly legal, as was the set up with the Phoenix four. However that is not going to stop the SFO and Business Innovation & Skills- Insolvency Service hanging you out to dry, because they don’t believe in pretty speeches about innocent until proved guilty. All I heard was the almighty clang of the steel trap closing behind you as you landed.

Channel Four have already decided you are as guilty as hell

“The controversial, sometimes described as disgraced, tycoon Asil Nadir is back in Britain after an absence of 17 years. The last time he left Britain he left with a trail of loss and closure behind him with the crash of the then significant retailer Polly Peck. There are 66 charges from that period still outstanding against him.”

The BBC are not keen either, bringing in the Michael Mates inscribed watch and asking – Did you work for Polly Peck? Are you affected by the issues in this story?

Issues, Asil, is a new code word for a ‘progressive’ point of view, as in race issues, green issues, social issues, gay issues. The alarm bells should be ringing. It usually means somebody has to be found to blame.

Disregarding the arcane nature of twenty five year old accounts, where are you going to find twelve men good and true, uninfluenced by the uninhibited twenty four hour media to form an impartial jury ?

Asil, they don’t care, they want a high profile result and you are it, its going to take two years for this to come to trial and in the meantime you are going to have to deal with a post Mandelson politicised public service wanting to protect us from free wheeling 1980’s buccaneers like you especially if they are ‘ foreign’.

Thatcherite Capitalism bad, State Corporatism good.

Private Company failure and bankruptcy bad, Public Government failure and bankruptcy good

I cannot remember how much Polly Peck sank for, but I bet it was not the £1 Bn the public sector lost in Iceland. I don’t see many District Council Treasurers walking around with tags on their legs !

Where are you are getting the impression that now is the right ‘environment’ to answer these charges. There may have been a change of Government, but the new ‘public service’ ethos is still there from the Blair/ Brown years. Rival public bodies are competing to be the ‘super detectives’

You are just the sort of person the SFO want to take down to prove they are the very boys for the top job.

Do they not have newspapers in Northern Cyprus, the New Triumphant State really does not like business other than as a conduit for collecting taxes. Read up about the Phoenix Four, the Nat West Four etc etc get your lawyers to speak to their lawyers. Get boned up on the dirty tricks, and don’t forget no matter how much money you have got the State has always got far more. Use the Freedom of Information Act as much as you can.

But at the end of the day Asil, you should have stayed on the beach, because this is going to end in tears.

Best G

Crossing The Tamar

I have been invited on Tuesday to attend a meeting of the Keep Cornwall Whole at Truro Town Hall 7pm on the 31st August as a representative of the Libertarian Party South West (Wessex & Kernow)

Con-Dem is proposing on the grounds of efficiency to merge some Cornish Seats with ones in Devon. Cornwall (Kernow) is in a very unique constitutional position within the United Kingdom. The last Stannary Parliament was called some thirty years after the last pre modern Scottish Parliament. The Duchy of Cornwall has morphed into some form of private company belonging to Prince Charles Coburg-Saxe-Gotha, but retain a great deal of the Duchy rights to the foreshore and other monarchical benefits, whilst the political entity morphed into a County Council of England.

The latest proposal by the Boundary Commission is that parts of Cornwall are blended into Devon.

Cornwall appears to have as much right to Crown Dependency status as the Isle of Man,the States of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey, with the right to set its own tax rates and have its own Courts etc.

Cornwall by adopting a Libertarian Agenda would stop being derided as an English Black Spot for unemployment, and could be the fourth prosperous independent Crown Dependency.

I am assured that even though I am by birth a Miercisc (look it up) I will be most welcome.

LPUK Blog in Top Thirty Libertarian Blogs

Hopefully we can get a few more contributions to push us back up the list.

Fabian Paradise

Population zero, but it has a Government of four, a Fabian Paradise.


I read about Ellen MacArthur's trip to South Georgia last Sunday so I thought I would have a look at the delights of South Georgia on line today. I was amazed to find that this proud little island, which once had a population of 2000, has its own little website.

It is a perfect Fabian statelet. There are no permanent inhabitants (it’s a bit chilly even in summer) ruining the ambience but it has a Government of four , it actually charges income tax ! Those temporary residents include-

There are 2 Government Officers and spouses, up to 25 British Antarctic Survey personnel at 2 research stations and up to 4 Museum staff in the summer months.

Everybody works for the Government or a Quango, it’s a perfect Brownist Statelet, with no working class to foul up the equation.

It is even anti business !

FAQ: I wish to start a business on SG, or incorporate my company.
This is not possible.

Immigration is forbidden

FAQ:I wish to move to SG and live there.

No, this is not possible. There are no SG residents.

It even has its own Laws !

The Harbour Fees Regulations (1994) set harbour dues for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. In 1998 amended Regulations came into force to set revised harbour dues; the amended Regulations are the Harbour (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1998.



The Pensions (Amendment) Ordinance (1994) adopts as law of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands the Pensions (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 of the Falkland Islands.
The Antarctic Regulations (1997) were enacted under the UK's Antarctic Act 1994 (Overseas Territories) Order 1995. They prescribe, amongst other things, the procedure by which applications can be made for permits (to visit Antarctica) under the Act, including provisions relating to environmental evaluations, production of permits and their revocation or suspension.

The Export of Arms Proclamation (1997) gives effect in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to various international arms embargoes, which the UK Government agreed shall be applied to this territory.

The Export of Anti-Personnel Landmines Proclamation (1997) gives effect in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to the UK Government's policy of prohibiting the export of anti-personnel landmines to all countries as part of its commitment to work actively towards a total global ban on the use of such mines.

FFS There is nobody living there !!!!!!!

You can take part in Public Consultations !



The Financial Accounts to 2008 show a surplus of £1.2 m mostly from (70%) fishing licences, nearly 80% of the GDP is taken up in Government expenditure, and the British Tax payer has ‘equity’ of some £12.7m

The ‘Town Meetings’ are somewhat easier to get to-

The 'South Georgia Town Meeting' will take place at British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge on September 28th 2010. It will include discussions about the science currently being done at South Georgia and presentations on the history, geology and oceanography, wildlife and fisheries in South Georgia. There will also be information on the accommodation, scientific facilities, logistic support, means of reaching the Island etc. that prospective scientific visitors will need.


That is Cambridge UK, not Cambridge SG.

So there you go, Libertarians being beaten to the chase in setting up their own State built on Libertarian lines. The Fabian Socialists and Ecoistas have already beaten us to it.

A perfect state where others pay for everything either through taxpayer ‘equity’ or taxing the passing fishing trade. Everybody works for the Government or a Quango. Lots of laws to obey and total commitment to a green agenda. A Fabian Paradise.

Hang on !If the UK taxpayer has ‘equity’ does that mean we are shareholders in this social enterprise ? Hmmm.

Never mind some of the locals are very friendly.

Economic Steroids

Credit is to the economy what steroids are to athletes; it enhances performance but, unless used in moderation, at a serious cost to the economic health of the nation. It follows that the modest degree of growth that America enjoyed in the 'locust years' was mostly to the economic equivalent of artificial stimulants.

To the extent that this kind of growth is fostered, or at least not hindered, by the authorities, it can be described as privatised Keynesianism- in addition to stimulating the economy by borrowing and spending through the national budget, the authorities encourage the private sector to do it. The effect is much the same, except the State cannot go literally bankrupt wheras private citizens and corporations can and do.

The Puritan Gift- K& W Hopper


A far better read than 'I was right' by one G Brown

Still Fighting 'them' on the beaches

The War goes on ! The war against Fascism (The marriage of the big State with big Corporations) we were told ended in 1945. Another skirmish has broken out, that the Libertarian Party is pleased to be part of-

All the links in the following article reproduced in full are to be found here on the Anna Raccoon site



70 years ago this week, Winston Churchill made his famous speech immortalising the words ‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.’ He did so to rally every man and woman in these Isles to support the war effort:

“because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity, but of tolerance and variety.”

Sheila Martin was a fragile babe in arms when her Mother heard those words. Too young to understand the menace behind the Messerschmitts and Heinkels screaming overhead and disturbing her slumber. She was the intended beneficiary of Churchill’s words, one of the generation of children that depended on the bravery of British men such as her Father, away in France fighting for the freedom, tolerance and variety that was Britain’s hallmark.

Today, Sheila is once more fragile; she is 70 years old and was widowed 30 years ago. She tells me she has survived five heart attacks; she suffers from asthma, angina and high blood pressure. She only smokes the occasional cigarette these days, partly for health reasons, partly because her minimal state pension doesn’t stretch to any more.

70 years after Churchill’s speech was made, she has retired from a lifetime of hard work.

She was part of that unsung army of hard working, clean living, decent individuals, who cheerfully got up every morning and trudged off to put in a decent days work for a paltry wage as a ‘Mrs Mop’, raised her family, nurtured her marriage, made ends meet, saved little, but asked little in return, save the freedom, and tolerance that her older relatives had fought to provide. She is not a politically aware lady, nor insolent, nor ambitious for financial rewards.

In common with other ‘Smokers’ who may not like the new laws prohibiting them from smoking where others may be offended by the practice, she respected the law of the land, and complied. She is no campaigner against such laws.

Thus it was that she found herself standing at a bus stop, waiting for the bus which would take her home, and taking the opportunity to smoke a cigarette in the open air – there was no bus shelter. She could no longer smoke a cigarette on the top deck of the bus. She had not been able to smoke a cigarette with the cup of tea she shared with her daughter in town. Now she must stand in the road to enjoy the ‘freedom, tolerance and variety’ of the British Isles.

She only smoked half the cigarette; as the time drew close for the bus to arrive, she ‘nibbed’ the cigarette, letting the lit end fall to the ground, and thriftily stowing the other half of the cigarette in her handbag for a later occasion. It was her last cigarette until pension day.

Two of Sandwell’s famed ‘enforcement wardens’ approached her – a man and a woman. They told her that they were issuing a ‘Fixed Penalty Fine’ of £75 under Section 87 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by Section 18 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. This mouthful of gobblygook was lost on Sheila; she had no idea what she had done wrong and put the piece of paper in her pocket.

Once home, friends and neighbours clustered round to read this piece of officialdom. Sheila still had the ‘end’ of the cigarette, with its precious inch or so of un-smoked tobacco in her handbag, so how could she be accused of littering the street – it had to be the cigarette ash they were talking about?

I have spoken to Sandwell Council, they tell me that they do not issue fixed penalty notices for cigarette ‘ash’ – I am sure they don’t. I am equally sure that Mrs Martin is telling the truth when she tells me that the half cigarette with its ‘butt’ was still safely in her handbag when she returned home. So we are left with the quandary of whether the ‘lit’ end of a cigarette, which will become cigarette ‘ash’ within seconds, constitutes parliament’s intention when they defined litter as including:

In section 98 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (definitions), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A)“Litter” includes—

(a) the discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products, and

(b) discarded chewing-gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing.”

If a court holds that it does, then every smoker is liable for a £75 fine every time they smoke a cigarette in the street. I do not believe that to be parliament’s intention.

On Friday, the threatening ‘Final Demand’ from Sandwell Council, warning her that she now faces a £2,500 fine plus costs (and possible imprisonment if she does not pay that) expired. The next opportunity for Mrs Martin to contest this matter will come in ‘some months time’ – the council cannot tell me when her case will arrive at the top of their back log of cases to appear in the Magistrates court.

Sheila Martin is frightened, intimidated, and feels helpless in the face of this prosecution. She is in delicate health, aggravated by stress, and I have asked the council to reconsider their decision to press ahead with what may well be an interesting test case defining a cigarette end, but which will be at the expense of a frail and elderly person. They have referred me to their ‘revised Enforcement Policy’ – which makes for terrifying reading, a fine example of the totalitarian government Sheila’s Father fought so bravely to prevent. (available HERE)

Nick Hogan, who I was instrumental in rescuing from prison after similar council action, has joined with me, the Libertarian Party and the Sunday Mercury, to ensure that Sheila suffers as little as possible from the council’s intransience.

We have already arranged for some very high powered legal representation for her, to put her mind at rest, and I have promised her that she will go to prison ‘over my dead body’ – she is obviously unable to pay this fine, or incremental increases of it, and I have personally guaranteed her that somehow I will make sure that she doesn’t have to pay it herself, nor go to prison.

There is no need for money at present, all the legal beagles so far involved are kindly donating their time and expertise free of charge – although if there are any other lawyers out there who would like to join the team, this is one broth that will not be spoiled by too many cooks. My e-mail address is on the contact section of this blog.

70 years ago we were prepared to ‘fight them on the beaches’ – how appropriate that today we prepare to f’ight them on the Sandwell……’

Cut Taxes Now

David Blanchflower has called for Taxes to be cut, and earlier post that I had done applauded that fact. What several people have pointed out is that Blanchflower also advocating increased State spending as well.

Mea Culpa, in a rush I had misread the article and just latched onto the cutting taxes, and not seen that he wanted to keep the bloated State sector intact as well.

The only way to ensure that the State is reduced is to throttle off the cash to sustain it, otherwise the public sector is going to maintain a campaign of resistance until the next election. It is better off left in the individuals pockets to spend or save as they so desire.

Just in case anybody thought I had joined the ranks of the Deficit Deniers !

Government is not the giver of rights

"Government is not the giver of rights; only God confers these to the people. People create government, giving it certain and limited powers. Only eternal vigilance by the people will confine government to its proper role."

Joe Vogler- Alaskan Indepedence Party 1982

Lord Pearson Resigns

This was not a surprise this morning especially as

The 68-year-old said he wanted to "spend more time on his wider interests", including "the treatment of people with intellectual impairment, teacher training, the threat from Islamism and the relationship between good and evil" - as well as his dogs and family, the BBC reported.

I always had doubts about his acumen as a leader when his the main planks of his domestic policy was banning the Burqua and reinstating Grammar schools.

UKIP is such a broad church ranging from Colonel Angry to some left wingers only sharing a visceral hatred of the EU. Their happiest hunting ground being the EU elections. As one BNP supporter said-


Until UKIP and the BNP merge then neither will be truly successful.

UKIP are more 'respectable' and are fractionally larger, but the BNP won more votes per seat and beat UKIP in head-to-head contests.

Given that the Lib-Lab-Con-men are all the same and there is nothing to choose between them, we need a party that represents the true views of the British people.

BNP and UKIP supporters are very alike: they oppose domination by the EU, want to reduce immigration, want to cut taxes and want an end to the oppression of political correctness.

Despite the filthy lies you read in the media, the BNP are a moderate and reasonable party, and they and UKIP would get along fine together.

British politics would be much healthier with a strong and successful patriotic party, and only a merged BNP/UKIP can offer that.



That would be an Authoritarian nightmare to behold.

'Fears' Over NHS £65 Bn ' Mortgage'

PFI was a nonsense that any short term five year term parliament would love to make.Look I have built you a lovely new hospital and it has not cost you a penny in extra taxes ! Binding future Governments to pay a fifty year 'mortgage' that the perpetrators would never live to pay. The final payment will be made sometime around 2048.

I just love the way that the BBC uses the way 'mortgage' as if it is something domestic and absolutely normal to our way of life. It is not a Mortgage it is massive DEBT with a massive interest bill, the value of the hospitals built was £11Bn that actually amount your grandchildren were going to pay for these hospitals, which will need major refurbishment/demolition in forty years will be £65 Bn, bargain !

Government sells itself on the basis that it is 'protecting' you, as a justification to deprive you of your money. It is therefore the only way that hospitals can be funded by central Government.

Ignoring for a second that nice clean hospitals are built in the UK and elsewhere in the world by private insurance companies. If it was proposed that a local tax by your local authority to build a new hospital in your area appeared on your payslip, would you seriously object, would you say no I am not paying for that.

Would you and your family feel more involved if the administration and finance of the hospital was just down the road, rather than some faceless bureaucrat in Whitehall putting these 'mortgages' together.

Would you and your employer feel more involved with the local hospital if they could off set their corporation taxes by donating direct to the local hospital.

Would there be more cohesion in your community if the rich voluntarily donated money to hospitals in exchange for tax relief and/or their name over a ward or on the hospital wall, and the saturday night drunks attacking staff were publicised locally because of their behaviour in 'your' hospital.

Local authorities can just designate an agricultural field as a site for a new hospital and give themselves planning permission, and sell off the old Victorian Hospital site for housing or any other reason.

This is not happening and giving us true value for tax dollars when bureacrats are making the decisions without reference to the taxpayer.

Just think how great it would be if you could swank around in your brand new house at the age off fifty five, knowing that you will never have to pay for it, but your as yet unborn grandson will.

Somewhere along the line that appears self delusional and more than immoral.

Bureaucratic Socialists call it investment in Public Services

The Non Aggression Axiom

H/T The UK Libertarian

Oh Dear God !

H/T Obnoxio


Why, Why Why ?

Jimmy Reid -Trades Unionist

What is a Libertarian doing lamenting the passing of a Communist Trades Unionist ?

Because the man was an idealist and a representative. When the nationalised Upper Clyde Shipbuilders went into receivership in 1971, instead of the usual we are going on strike, which was a pretty pointless move Reid declared-

We are not going on strike, we are taking over the yards because we refuse to accept that faceless men can make these decisions. We are not strikers- we are responsible people and we will conduct ourselves with dignity and discipline.

There was to be no hooliganism, no vandalism and nae bevvying. A phrase that swept round the world.

Heath eventually backed down and two out the three yards are still working owned by BAE systems. It is always harder to build than it is to destroy.

Reid saw through the cronyism of the Scottish Labour party and disliked the professional politician. He accused Tony Benn of having more conversions on the road to Damascus than a Syrian long distance truck driver. He was intensely critical of Scargill's suicidal miners strike. He saw through the modernisers in the Labour Party under Kinnock and the hijacking of the party by Blair and Brown. Reid joined the SNP when he finally realised that Labour no longer represented Scotland's interests.

The faceless men now run Britain, using glib slogans and soundbites. Reid was a genuine man of the people, he stood in front of men in driving rain and persuaded them to follow him.

Whilst my politics are different to his, I respect the man, the leader and the idealist.(And I am damn sure I would have enjoyed a bevy with him)

Repeat After Me, There Are No Government Spending Cuts

It was a joy to see John Redwood on Newsnight baffle Kirsty Wark by this statement. She looked thoroughly non plussed, as this is the 'progressive' line by the BBC and the generality of the red/pink/green left. Every evening we have groups fighting 'the cuts' each public 'service' re-defining its self as an essential frontline service.

All that is happening is that the State is SLOWING its rate of growth. It is still spending more than it is bringing in taxation.

According to this year’s budget plans, public current spending will rise from £600.6 billion in 2009-10, the last Labour year, to £692.7 billion in 2014-15, the last planned year of the Coalition government in this Parliament. That’s a rise of £92.7 billion, or more than 15%: a rise of £1500 for every man,woman and child in the UK.

Let me give you an extract from the Swiss Consitution


Chapter 3: Financial System

Art. 126 Financial management

1 The Confederation shall maintain its income and expenditure in balance at all
times.

2 The ceiling for total expenditure that is to be approved in the budget is based on the expected income after taking account of the economic situation.

3 Exceptional financial requirements may justify an appropriate increase in the
ceiling in terms of paragraph 2. The Federal Assembly shall decide on any increase
in accordance with Article 159 paragraph 3 letter c.

4 If the total expenditure in the federal accounts exceeds the ceiling in terms of
paragraphs 2 or 3, compensation for this additional expenditure must be made in
subsequent years.

5 The details shall be are regulated by law.


The Government of the Swiss Confederation are constrained by LAW and the Constitution
from allowing Government spending rip, because they recognise that it is the Swiss Taxpayer that at the end of the day who puts his hand in his/her pocket.

Can you imagine this Country operating like this ? No wonder the political classes do not want a Constitution or anything to change.They actually prefer crisis management.

Towards A Constitution

There are few more dangerous errors in political thinking
than to equate democracy with liberty. James Bovard 2006

The Swiss Federation has had three Constitutions since 1848 following
the military defeat of the "Sonderbund" alliance when the liberals used the opportunity to strengthen federal central power in Switzerland. They were prudent enough, however, to allow cantons extensive rights of self-determination, particularly in areas that had proven to be delicate; the basic principles of the constitution of the U.S.A. were adopted. There was a partial revision in 1866, a new Constitution in 1874, and a new Constitution promulgated as recent as 1999.

We have had precious little in terms of constitutional reform since 1688 and the ‘Glorious Revolution’ when one bunch of Aristocrats and arrivistes, pushed out another bunch of Aristocrats and arrivistes and sat in their chairs. The Constitution was declared as just three words ‘ Parliament is Sovereign’. The net result is that around six hundred and fifty people secure about thirty per cent of the popular vote each to become representatives. They then owe allegiance to their party and its whips that do the bidding of an even smaller clique called the cabinet, who variously all went to the same school or were interns together. They call this Parliamentary Democracy, which is an oxymoron.

Why do the Swiss feel the need to revise their Constitution three times in one hundred and fifty years, and we cling to a sclerotic form of government that is three hundred and twenty years old?

We are living a myth that we live in a free and democratic society and are yet still an Imperial power, when the reality is that it is a delusion brought about by a two party system that neither side has any real interest in changing much. The proponents of this ramshackle system, that is long on tradition and pomp and very short on representing the popular will of the people, say it is the stability of the system that counts, as if the Swiss Confederation has been a model of political instability.


In the last one hundred years we have fought two major conflicts that bankrupted the country, we are still fighting wars that we can neither afford or should be fighting. Political life has been degraded by both the political elites with the over centralisation to Whitehall since 1944. The voter no longer counts, has no influence, yet the political elites claim a ‘popular mandate’ . They may have not noticed but politicians are not that well regarded.


Let me cite Article nine of the Constitution of the Swiss Confederation

Art. 9 Protection against arbitrary conduct and principle of good faith
Everyone has the right to be treated by state authorities in good faith and in a non-arbitrary manner.


The Swiss Constitution recognizes that Government by its very nature acts in bad faith and in an arbitrary manner, and yet seeks to protect the citizen against the worst aspects of Government by declaring such actions as unconstitutional, and more importantly puts the State in a subordinate role.

Try telling some low level government jobsworth when he is making your life hell, he will laugh his socks off if you said his actions are illegal and unconstitutional, he will just turn round and say it’s the rules, you can change them at the next election in five years time if you don’t like them.

The country is exhausted, broke and worse still its morale is low. Hardly the sort of background for Cameron to say we are all in this together.

Only by root and branch Constitutional reform on a Cantonal system can Britain survive. The Conservatives and the Social Democrats are paying lip service to localism, but are too scared to let the reins of power go. Labour on the other hand wants to keep the power centralized. If Con-Dem does not have the courage to return power to us, the vast majority are going to have to live under another Labour Government in a few short years that would have to be resisted as an arbitrary power not a legitimate one.



*James Bovard's writings have been publicly denounced by the head of the Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI), the US Secretary of Agriculture , the US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the chiefs of the US International Trade Commission, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Emergency Emergency Management Agency, and multiple Commissioners of the Internal Revenue Service, and the chair of Congressional Black Caucus. Therefore worth a read for the Libertarian.

Parish Notice: US Libertarian Party Internships

The US Libertarian Party has a call out for interns:

The Libertarian National Committee is now accepting applications for our Fall 2010 internship program.

The program will run from early September until November 30th. Interns will be required to work 16 hours a week at a rate of $8.25 an hour. If requested, interns enrolled in a post-secondary institution can receive university credit.

We are looking to recruit students from a variety of fields. Primarily, we are looking for students with experience in any of the following fields, journalism, communications, political science, economics, and philosophy.

See the link for full details.

I have checked with them and they would accept applicants from the UK, however they won't be able to offer travel and accommodation. If anyone is interested they should contact:

Kyle Hartz, Internship Coordinator & New Media Specialist
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
2600 Virginia Ave. N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 333-0008
kyle@lp.org

Please let me know if you do apply, it would make a good slot in the newsletter and a regular blog subject.

Not A Good Weekend For Confidence In The Police

A retired Policeman who stood guard over the body of Dr David Kelly has now admitted that there was very little blood that would justify Kelly dying in this manner thus confirming the statements of the two paramedics who attended on scene, and fuelling further controversy and confirming the view of a group of Doctors that he could not have possibly died in this way.

Coe also now admits that there was a 'third man' on scene in contravention of his earlier evidence to the largely discredited Hutton enquiry, and he is still refusing to name this man.

Lastly that he was instructed to search Kelly's house for sensitive documents relating to Iraq.

Whatever you weigh this up, and don't forget that Hutton delivered the BBC up to the Blair Government, there is an almighty stench still hanging over this whole affair.

It appears that obsfucation and not telling the truth and the whole truth is now endemic within the Police and security services.






Two policemen have been suspended following this attack on a retired businessman who they accused of fleeing from the scene of a 'stop' ( Note the speedo bottom right, he stays within the speed limit at all times, until he stops voluntarily , but this does not stop the 'road rage' incident and criminal damage that ensued.

Was there a reason for this TV cop response, possibly this episode concerning Mr Whatley a few years earlier may provide a salient clue.

On current form as with Jean Charles De Menezes, Balir Peach and Ian Tomlinson it will be the fault of the victim, rather than the assailants dressed up as law officers.

ACPO the private limited company that runs the Police in this country as so to avoid the intrusions of the Freedom Of Information Act have threatened to resign if elected Police Commissioners are brought in. The Libertarian Party has long had this as policy, and ACPO should be closed down in the public interest as a private limited company.

The Police have been itching to crack heads eversince February 2009 with the outrageous statement referring to a 'summer of rage' by Super Hartshorn.

This is not policing by consent under the Peelian Principles. The Police are in serious danger of turning themselves into a paramilitary force at the hands of repressive government. In the case of Kelly searching for sensitive 'Iraq' documents is the job of SIS not the civilian police.

Some 'hard cases' in the force seem to take some pleasure in assaulting members of the forces who have been involved in action in Afghanistan in an almost tribal proving manhood test.

A relative of mine who served in the Highland Light Infantry in World War Two said that when the Police assaulted one of their number prior to D Day, they took a covered truck and two bren guns, and shot up shop windows in the high street of a south coast town scattering the police on duty. What did they care, as far as they were concerned ninety per cent of them were going to killed in the next month when the invasion started. Lets hope that we don't get to that level of retaliation, fortunately the Army has a bit more control over its members than do some Police Forces.

The fact that Mr Whatley's solicitor has released the sickening assault to the media, shows the level of confidence that he has in getting the two policemen concerned sacked and convicted, that he feels in neccessary to appeal to the public.

The Police should remember the 4th Peelian Principle

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

The last Labour Government tore up the rule book, the Libertarian Party wants Peel back.

Less central Government control means more Governement control

Dan Hannan, in his Telegraph blog, points a to CiF piece by Eric Pickles that Dan reckons is another page from The Plan:

Taxpayer-funded campaigns conducted by private lobbying firms mean public money gets taken beyond the local area, public policy is weakened and public discourse becomes a soundbite battle. Lobbyists are not subject to freedom of information or transparency rules. Democracy is at its strongest when it is cost-efficient, open and transparent, and lobbying on public money undermines it.

We need to change our political culture and the rules on publicity because these sorts of campaigns are not localist: public money is being spent outside the local area on national lobbyists to influence national politicians on parliamentary matters.

In principle I can't argue with the desire, the problem is that far too many laws and targets are imposed from on high through control of 75% of local council budgets, which means that councils do need to try to influence policy. So what will you do about it, Eric?

This new government wants a total change in the way our country is run – from closed systems to open markets, from bureaucracy to democracy, from big government to "big society", from politician power to people power.

So I intend to introduce tough new rules around council publicity that will increase transparency and make sure Whitehall and town halls talk directly in open and accountable ways

OK, so far so good. Nobody can argue against more transparency, or little white lambs gamboling in the fields and cuddly kittens for all children for that matter.

Councils are part of the team.

What team would this be, Eric?

We want to hand power back to councils so the door is open.

Which door, Eric? I've a feeling this is going to end in tears.

If a local politician wants to change something they only need to knock, pick up a pen or fire off an email. We will continue to do business openly

Ah, now I get it. What you are really saying is that you want to keep control and do it in such a way that councils have to come cap in hand to you in an email or telephone call. That doesn't sound very open to me, in fact it sounds decidedly dodgy. Cosy chats with your mates negotiating away our money in secret doesn't sound very transparent to me. Just a thought, but you haven't got a sofa in your office, have you, Eric?

Local councils are going to have a lot more power to shape their community under the new government.

No they aren't, you've just said they will have to ask your permission to change anything.

But accountability and transparency need to go with it. I want a transparency revolution so local people can hold local politicians to account about how their hard-earned cash is being spent. I want a transparency revolution so local people can hold local politicians to account about how their hard-earned cash is being spent.

No, what you are saying is that you want local councils to take the blame for your decisions. We've been there for the past 13 years and it really doesn't work because to get the decisions that they want councils have to lobby you and your department, which is where we came in.

That is why I have urged all councils to publish details of all spending over £500 in full and online so you can see what they are spend your money on.

Do you really think this will stop them spending money on lobbyists? Where there's a will, there's a way and all that. There's only one way to stop them spending money on lobbying central government, get out of the way and let councils live and die by their own decisions. That means letting them raise their own cash and make their case to local voters.

So, I've got a better idea. Why don't we do away with the Communities and Local Government department and let the Government concentrate on defence of the realm, foreign affairs and criminal justice and let local communities get on with their own lives.

There's only one party that really believes in localism and, sadly, we aren't in Government.

The more we see of the coalition the more its obvious that we need a real swing to libertarianism and not this faux localism we are seeing from the coalition. The holiday is over, lets get back to the task of holding them to account and working for true localism. That takes money and time, so please be generous with both and help us to maintain our momentum.

In Response to David Cameron's Housing Policy-on-the-Hoof

During a “live Q&A” session, David Cameron was asked by a member of the audience about her predicament in relation to housing shortages. She was currently sleeping on an inflatable bed in the living room in her 2 bedroom council property so her two teenage daughters can each have a bedroom to themselves while the council had not found her a bigger house.

There are a few points I wanted to highlight. One was the question itself, which exposes a rather depressing mindset, next was David Cameron’s response that has good and not so good components to it, but first I will visit the concept of this thing often called “Council Housing”.

“Council Housing” is a common term often lazily used to describe many different things. I am sometimes guilty of this laziness, too, though I try to correct myself. The term forgets the work of charities such as Peabody and other Housing Associations. Some use the term “Affordable Housing”, which, right from the off, is totally subjective and meaningless - by definition pretty much all housing in the private sector is “affordable”, seeing as the resident can “afford” it. Another is the newspeak term “Social Housing” which is, along with most newspeak, meaningless yet attempts to get a manipulative hook into the mind and twist. That term has no respectable use.

A more appropriate term to use here might be “Subsidised Housing”, for the purpose, whether you agree with it ideologically or not, is out in the open – to provide a subsidy for housing. Once one uses this term, one can even incorporate any housing funded by or in part with Housing Benefit regardless of who owns the bricks and mortar. I think this is a very useful term, because it more aggressively begs the compound question “what, when, where and for whom?”. These questions are crying out to be revisited and David Cameron’s response has triggered a long overdue debate in the wider public domain, noting that such debates have never gone away for us in the Libertarian Party.

David Cameron’s response was very interesting. In a nutshell, he called into question the presumption that a Council Tenant has, basically, a subsidised tenancy for life and even transferable on to their children, without means testing. David Cameron suggested that people be re-assessed after a period of years to see if they still qualify for that accommodation. He opened those remarks with the recognition that the questioner’s need had grown, and how that should be tackled is also worthy of an airing, as it all comes into the mix.

The issues here are a) a subsidised secured tenancy without review, b) the ability for descendants to inherit same, c) the obligation upon the State to react to changes in circumstances and d) what constitutes a valid “change”.

Subsidised tenancy without review: David Cameron has dared question the status quo. This is long overdue. The idea that one is handed a secure, subsidised tenancy for life without a regular review of circumstances is amazing, astonishing. Some would describe it as obscene. I am one of those people. One would think that subsidised housing meant housing for those not able to afford market rates. Under that basis, regular means testing is a natural and expected part of the contract. Without regular reviews, the demand for subsidised housing will grow and grow as people temporarily slip into poverty but permanently gain access to the housing that that previous circumstance entitled. This creates a ratchet effect. The temptation to illegally sub-let is also there, and anyone who thinks this does not happen already is naïve.

Inheriting those secure, subsidised tenancies exacerbates the ratchet and potential for illegal sub-letting mentioned above. One must also not forget that the transfer of a secured, subsidised tenancy is a form of inheritance with real and significant value. Of course, the Left would not see any hypocrisy in such arrangements and their attitude to inheritance by “the rich”. Oh no [1].

To resolve the current situation, things need to change. While I can see that progress can be made by removing legal obligations upon Municipalities to maintain secure tenancies and inheritance – which is a non-Authoritarian, localising twist on suggestions made by David Cameron – we should also look at what is supposed to be going on – Subsidised Housing. If somebody no longer qualifies for subsidised housing, there should not be a need to evict them, but have the ability to charge them the rate of rent and costs that the family that otherwise would have rented that house at a subsidy is now paying outside. This way you remove the whole question of eviction and disruption to schools and community that people say will happen, while enabling the State to have the resources to house those in desperate need.

When you then consider that the cut-off need not and, in reality, should not be a binary all-or-nothing, the adjustments in the payment of housing benefit could provide a smooth transition as people earn steadily more. If market rates are levied on people who would qualify for subsidy, the higher Housing Benefit is there to meet those rents and so are netted off. What it does do is enable the Municipality to help those who need accommodation to get it without being blocked by those who are not quite ready to move out of Municipal housing.

In parallel, there needs to be further reductions in centrally enforced minimum levels of Housing Benefit, and to reduce or end the legal entitlement for people to gain more and more resources as they grow their families or access such funding while being a bad tenant. This localises the decision making process.

There is then the possibility to go one step further and have all the municipal housing stock charged at market rates and then Housing Benefit used as the mechanism to subsidise such rentals on a case by case basis[2]. One then only need to review Housing Benefit.

This will allow people more freedom of movement to find work, escape disruptive neighbours and remove the obligation upon the Municipality to house them. It will also expose the housing the State is not maintaining, for, as everyone would be free to move to private accommodation whilst Housing Benefit could never be higher than rentals, tenants will vote with their feet.

This then takes us on to the last point raised by David Cameron that I want to cover here, which is linked closely with the comments made by the questioner.

To remind ourselves, the questioner was explaining that the Council had not re-housed her, even though she was sleeping on a lilo in the living room so as to let her two teenage daughters have a bedroom each. David’s response appeared to acknowledge that her situation “had changed”.

I fail to see why this is a case for re housing. I had to share a room almost the entire time I lived in the family home. Many people grew up sharing their bedrooms and many expect to see their children having to do the same for the simple reason that they cannot afford to buy or rent the house that individual bedrooms require. It is hardly a privation or in any way damaging or limiting. If anything there is probably something to be said for the socialising effect it has on people. Those daughters are not even sharing with brothers[3].

It is best for us to not focus on specifics or individuals, but the generics - the apparent disregard for the burden on others to provide housing, often living in worse conditions, and that there is no automatic access to everything one wants just because one wants it nor a ratchet upwards due to lifestyle choices and/or expectations.

When one falls back on the need for subsidised housing, it is irresponsible to then wilfully seek to increase the burden you force upon others, specifically by increasing the size of ones family. While there should be the freedom to have children, there should not be a “right” to demand others subsidise them. This reality appears to escape some people. Many people would love to have more children, but out in the real world people do limit the number of children they have due to housing costs and logistics. They know that there is no Fairy Godmother to waive a magic wand and create a new, free, bedroom and the extra money to pay for it all. To that end, there should not be an automatic entitlement to increases in benefits (money, housing) to those already receiving them should they increase the size of their families. This should also cover those living at home with parents – if you want to have a family/children, then that should be the incentive to go out there and work for it, not produce children then expect housing and funds to arrive.

Subsidised housing should be considered as a last resort, not a lifestyle. If you want more space, one should work for it like everyone else has to.

While that seems harsh, the proposals above – moving to regular, consistent, transparent means testing of housing subsidy, ending inheritance, greater flexibility and opportunity for people to move where they wish and access to ever greater resources should significantly reduce perverse incentives and disincentives while ending the virtual imprisonment and immobility that comes with State housing as it now stands.

It should be stressed that the suggestions above – not all official Libertarian Party Policy at this time - are about dismantling centrally-imposed statutory/legal constraints and obligations upon Municipalities, i.e. not dictating to them. This means they can be free to respond to how local people wish them to respond to the situation. Some Municipalities might wish to keep things as they are, others may wish to adopt some of the alternatives that the liberalisation enables.

Housing subsidy is a major contribution to dependence on State largesse and is a factor in distorting rents and land use, as is the planning process. All these factors plus the wider benefits system and taxation combine to distort the market. Other adjustments are likely to be needed, but directly, Municipalities need to be freed from central control and the obligation to furnish perverse, grossly unfair (to the put upon working poor) “entitlements”.



[1] With the absence of regular review combined with the concept of inherited tenancies, one must then ask if there is or has been another agenda at work in the background. The ratchet effect would, if allowed to play out and if such housing provision was resourced like the veritable tumour, end up with significant numbers of people and even higher numbers of families benefiting directly or indirectly from such secured subsidised tenancies. This would be a cynical “lock in” to State largesse, a form of deadly embrace of vote buying to add to the others that Statists manage to “accidentally” create.


[2] It would not need a betting man to wager that we will see many people move from municipal housing into the private sector voluntarily when financial incentives to remain in such housing are removed.

[3] I was to say “boys”

Economic Obligations

The banks have no such thing as an "economic obligation" to do anything. They are private companies with shareholders, even if in a couple of cases some of those shareholders happen to be the taxpayer. Their only obligation is to them. If lending money makes commercial sense, they'll do it. If it doesn't, they won't. But here we have a Conservative Chancellor speaking to them as if they were an arm of the state. Has he been going to seminars with Tony Benn? Though I doubt Mr Benn himself would ever think in such fatuous terms. No: Mr Osborne learnt it from Vince Cable.

Simon Heffer- The Telegraph

Equally the Taxpayer was under no obligation to bail these private companies out. The Private Banks are now making 'profits' the Public purse is dented for two generations.

Banks appear to have one objective in this country to get to the too big to fail status. Then they can take uncommercial risks, because the risk management has been shifted else where.

State interference caused Lloyds to acquire HBOS, and sink that below the waterline, HSBC, Barclays have survived the maelstrom intact by raising new capital, Lloyds could have do so as well.

The Law And The State

"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807.

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816.


I have noticed a very disturbing trait amongst Public Servants who have forged their careers in the low grade politicised Public Service that was welded together in the Blair/Brown years. That of evading the Law and indulging in extra curricular activity to ensure that targets are met and political favour (and promotion) maintained.

I have particular personal experience of this, but as other investigations are being carried out into the public servants concerned, I would rather highlight the case of a Doctor who blew the whistle on unsafe medical practices in Abergavenny Hospital featured on Channel Four News on Monday evening. She thought she was protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).

The aptly named Aneurin Bevan Health Board decided to follow a course of action that I certainly recognise. Remember that a young man nearly died in this incident. The Health Board decided that its sacred cow reputation and targets was far more important than this Doctor. She was expendable by the bureaucrats even though she was definately providing a 'frontline' service.

Dr Lucy Dawson brought two employment tribunal actions against the Health Board, on how they dealt with her whistleblowing on unsafe practices. PIDA is quite clear that the whistle blower is protected under the Law. The Health Board along with many other NHS Trusts then followed a well worn and illegal path.

Rather than be exposed at a Tribunal, lawyers acting for the Trust offered a pay off that was contingent on signing a gagging order. Dr Dawson then made the fatal mistake of relying on the Law (PIDA) to protect her and refused to sign .

The Trust and its Legal fee earners then started a smear campaign, never mind the truth, the Sacred cow must be protected at all costs.

Anybody who goes up against the State will tell you, you cannot win. It is impossible because the State will array against you its vastly superior financial resources to win its case by attrition until you throw the towel in. Failing that a campaign by extra judicial means will be commenced against you. If a medical professional can have her seventeen year hospital career terminated, what chance the man in the street.

Dr Dawson terminated her claim against the Health Board on the grounds of cost and now works as a locum. The State won, not because Justice was on its side but because it could buy the result it wanted.

We now have a legal system that is out of the financial reach of the vast majority of the population other than the very rich or the desperately poor. Parliament can churn out as many bad Laws as it likes because they are impossible to defend and when the Law is used as a weapon to crush and oppress we are living in a tyranny.

A solution has to be found to this. A Libertarian relies on the just application of fair Laws that are equally applied, in legal circles called ‘Equality of Arms’. If Parliament cannot ensure that its Laws are so widely disregarded by powerful agencies of the State, it is upto the general population to voluntarily combine to and seek a legal remedy either through a voluntary Legal Defence fund, until public servants start losing their jobs and are prosecuted for breaking the Law and using extra curricular methods.

In a few short weeks a Landlord was released from jail for ‘flouting’ the smoking ban, by public subscription. Imagine if the public servants involved in the Dawson case knew that there was a good chance they would go to jail if twenty million of us paid into a legal fund at a pound a week,and the Dr Dawson’s of this world would succeed. Not have to withdraw because of costs. Do you think that the face of the State would change ? I think it would.

Note From The Treasurer

I would like to thank everybody, Member and supporters who so generously made a donation to the Party in July, however made. We do not get the support of major companies or unions and are totally reliant on your generosity.

There is so much more that the Libertarian Party can and must do. Tim Carpenter and Andrew Withers have been on mainstream TV and Radio in the last few weeks, so we are slowly prizing the door open.

We are painfully aware that we are in a difficult economic period, which is why I am trying to build a war chest for next May slowly and surely. Therefore every pound we collect in is so valuable.


Please keep the donations coming in of whatever size. Whilst I am speaking to some serious donors it is your £5, £10 , £20 plus that keeps us going.


Direct bank transfer to:

sort code 40-28-20

account 92635313


Please put your surname and if you have one a membership number as a reference.

Parish Notice: "Our Drugs War", C4, 8pm 2nd August 2010

Just a quick reminder to all of you that there is what appears to be an interesting programme on Channel 4 this evening entitled "Our Drugs War". I believe it is on at 8pm today and, being a three-parter, for two more Mondays following this.

It should be a good programme to direct at those you know who have been systematically misled by the MSM, Fabians, Control Freaks, Bansturbators, Prohibitionists, Authoritiarians and other assorted corruptors of the mind and believe the nonsense that is "the war on drugs".

For those who might miss an episode, I believe it will be available via 4OD .

Do watch it and spread the word.

The BBC Rest Home For Bewildered Home Secretaries

Last week I posted here and here that the largest failing of public policy by ConDem to date was not to abolish the BBC on day two.

This is the high tower of Fabianism in this country, the source of news and opinion for about eighty five per cent of the population.

Therefore one of the commanding heights of the State.

So what an expected surprise to hear that Jackboot Jacqui (mix up over exenses, porn and state funded living expenses fame) had applied for the post of Vice Chairman of the BBC.

Questions are being asked by reporters to which she responds 'fuck off' as to what she can bring to the post. Well apart from another sinecure from the taxpayer it is that since the 'coup de main' after the Kelly affair, the Labour Party has taken control of the State funded BBC and treats it as its own fiefdom.

I humbly suggest that Ms Smith sees the BBC Board as a natural home, is further justification for abolishing the BBC and or a Licence Payers Strike.

London Meet Up -- August Thursday 5th

This is just to remind you if you would like a drink and a chat with some fellow Libertarians we will be meeting up in London this Thursday -- 5th.

Once again we will be meeting at the Rose and Crown in Southwark. And we will be there from 6:30 onwards.

We had a good time last month -- even if we were a little short on numbers. So if you are available feel free to pop along as it should be an enjoyable night.

If you haven't been before here is a map. And we hope to see you on Thursday.

View Rose and Crown -- Southwark in a larger map

What Parkinson's Law teaches us about cuts in front line services

Update: Google spell check HTML removed

If you haven't read Parkinson's Law you should. Its only just over 4 pages and explains brilliantly how bureaucracies proliferate and become a means in themselves. Once you have read it you will understand the mentality that turns all government cuts (or lack of increased spending which is what we are really seeing) into cuts in front line services instead of cuts in bureaucracies and improvements in efficiencies.

I know that to some extent I'm about to preach to the choir but you never know who also visits this site and its always worth going back to first principles as a reminder of how simple things really are.

In all organisations we have managers and administrators who ensure that whatever service or widget is being delivered money is spent and collected and that the people who deliver the final product get paid and looked after. Like it or not these are crucial roles; but the trick is knowing which ones are crucial and which have evolved into jobs for job's sake. As the old saying goes about advertising, everyone knows that advertising spend is only 50% effective, the problem is we don't know which 50%.

For the ease of writing lets call these managers and administrators manistrators. When we analyse an organisation we can look at the ratio of manistrators to front line workers as a way of measuring our efficiency. if the ratio goes up we are becoming more efficient, conversely if it goes down we are becoming less efficient. Simples. This should be something that is constantly being monitored by good managers and even when I was in the army in the '80s we managed the support services Vs teeth arms ratio.

So lets look at the approach of industry and a government bureaucracy to cuts and take nursing as an example, because this the one that always hits the headlines whenever there is talk about cuts. For the sake of argument lets assume that the ratio of manistrators to nurses is 10:1. I've no idea of the exact number, but it I'll bet that's on the high side.

So, when the nasty ConDems come along and say to the NHS that you will have to cut your budget by £Xm, Parkinson's law shows us how senior manistratos look at the problem with a bureaucrats keen eye. The bureaucrat will conclude that if the cuts mean that, say, 20 manistratos are to be cut that means that 200 nurses need to be cut as well, to maintain the ratio and to grab headlines and make their political point. I suspect the more scurrilous ones will start by cutting nurses and just let the ratio worsen.

In private industry the mindset is different. When the order comes to cut costs because sales are falling and/or profits need to improve the mindset is different. Managers look at ways of improving the ratio of manistrators and other costs to front line services. In good organisations and well run companies this is a constant battle and anyone who doesn't get it right is soon on their way out. Those resources/costs now freed up are invested elsewhere and give us further improvements or goods and services that we want. This we call progress and it is how as a society we get wealthier.

And what drives private industry to constantly improve? Competition. And what is missing in our average government bureaucracy? Yes, competition.

If you think this is simplistic libertarian bullshit then you need to read this. As Tim Worstall points out the Office of National Statistics (ONS) found that:

“Because inputs grew a little faster than output, productivity over the whole period fell, on average by 0.3 per cent.”

He gives real numbers to what this means to us in terms of Parkinson's Law making us poorer and the post is worth a read.